[WikiEN-l] WR's secret forum and list

[Jimmy Wales]

Relata Refero wrote:
> The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error
> of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account
> was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was
> unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an
> (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several
> respected editors.

The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.

Private lists, whether informal and ad hoc, or formalized, are generally 
a good thing.  They allow admins to discuss things openly without fear 
of the press or random trolls getting involved.  They can allow for 
thoughtfully coordinated action to deal with a problem.  They allow for 
the possibility of peer oversight.

It is also true that in some cases this may not be enough.  In the case 
we are all examining here, the problem was that the admin in question 
made a bad error by not waiting for someone else (or multiple someone 
elses) to confirm what was quite clearly going to be an edgy block *at 
best* (and a complete injustice, as worst, which is of course what it 
turned out to be).

It would be a shame if the response to this, culturally, would be a 
feeling that "you should not consult privately with your peers if you 
are not sure, out of fear of being labelled an evil secret cabal".  The 
correct response is: don't make controversial blocks based on secret 
evidence... the riskier the block the more need for broad feedback 
first... don't block in cases of this sort without asking the party in 
question first what is going on... don't block in cases of this sort 
when there is no immediate emergency... etc.

Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.

--Jimbo